What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4548362 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4548362?

Failing To Provide Insurance Informa…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Interference With Quiet Enjoyment: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bathroom Door: $471.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4548362?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4548362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9342294-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4548362 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4548362?

Failing To Provide Insurance Informa…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Interference With Quiet Enjoyment: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bathroom Door: $471.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4548362?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4548362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9342294-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit 601, 20 McCrae Way, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4548362 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit 601, 20 McCrae Way, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4548362 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4548362 — net $3,771.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 May 2023	$2,700.00		Rent arrears to 9 May 2023
Flooring repair	$500.00		Flooring repair
Plaster and paint repairs	$500.00		Plaster and paint repairs
Replace bathroom door	$471.50		Replace bathroom door
Interference with quiet enjoyment		$200.00	Interference with quiet enjoyment
Failing to provide insurance information		$200.00	Failing to provide insurance information
Total award	$4,171.50	$400.00
Net award	$3,771.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,771.50

Claims and awards for application 4548362 — net $3,771.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 9 May 2023

Amount: $2,700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 9 May 2023

Flooring repair

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Flooring repair

Plaster and paint repairs

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Plaster and paint repairs

Replace bathroom door

Amount: $471.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace bathroom door

Interference with quiet enjoyment

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Interference with quiet enjoyment

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Rent arrears

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 [bond number suppressed] to Shelter Realty Limited T/A Harcourts New Lynn as agent for Ashish Kumar and Payal Ram immediately.
[The tenant] must pay Shelter Realty Limited T/A Harcourts New Lynn as agent for Ashish Kumar and Payal Ram $1,971.50 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Michelle Xu, the property manager, attended the hearing for the landlords.
The tenant attended for herself.
The landlord applies for rent arrears, compensation for various costs, and exemplary damages for abandonment.
The tenant applies for compensation for the landlord conducting too many inspections, interfering with her reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, requiring payment in excess of her obligations, and failing to disclose insurance details in the tenancy agreement and upon request.

What does the tenant owe for rent arrears?

The tenancy was for a fixed term beginning on 11 May 2022 and ending on 9 May 2023. On 20 March 2023, the tenant emailed the landlord of her intention to move out on 30 March 2023 due to swipe card issues and the landlord interfering with her reasonable peace and privacy, among other matters. The tenant moved out as advised on 30 March 2023, without obtaining the landlord’s consent to ending the tenancy early.
Fixed term tenancies can only be ended early by consent of the parties or in limited circumstances that do not apply here. Therefore, the tenant must pay rent due until the end of the tenancy.
Ms Xu provided rent records which prove the amount owing.

Should the Tribunal order the tenant to pay compensation?

Cleaning costs

At the end of their tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish: s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 RTA).
Ms Xu sought reimbursement for cleaning costs. The cleaning must have been done some months ago given the tenancy ended more than three months ago. However, the cleaning contractor is overseas. They have not invoiced the landlord and the landlord has not paid anything to them.
The landlord has not incurred a loss for the cleaning at this time at least. It is uncertain whether the contractor will invoice the landlord. This claim is not allowed.

Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?

The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA.
The landlord claims for damage to a towel rack. However, I am not satisfied that the damage to the towel rack was more than fair wear and tear.
The premises’ vinyl flooring was badly dented in multiple places by the impact of people sitting on chairs. The damage would have been much less if the tenant had been more careful. It would have been prudent to place floor protector pads on the bottom of the chair legs for example.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that the damage was not caused carelessly. The floors were about five-and-a-half years old. The quoted replacement cost is $1,150.00. I order the tenant to pay $500.00 towards the cost of replacement. The reduced amount is to take account of depreciation. Vinyl floors have an expected lifespan of about 10 years.
The tenant damaged the walls by installing a television and hanging pictures. The “damage” was intentional in the sense the tenant knew that damage would occur, albeit it was legitimately permitted damage that she knew she would need to remediate at the end of the tenancy. I order the tenant to pay $500.00 to repair the damage.
The tenant’s partner damaged the bathroom door. The tenant had it replaced without telling the landlords because she was embarrassed. Unfortunately, the replacement door is inferior to the original door and the landlords intend to replace the tenant’s door. The landlords should not have to accept an inferior bathroom door to the original. The damage was caused intentionally. The tenant must pay the landlords $471.50 to replace the door.

Did the tenant abandon the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant abandoned the premises.
A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse and fails to notify the landlord, not intending to return or to meet their obligations.
A tenant commits an unlawful act if they abandon the premises when the rent is in arrears. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00: s 61(5) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The tenant did leave the premises, but she did notify the landlord she was leaving. Nor did the tenant intend not to meet her obligations.
I do not find it proven that the tenant abandoned the premises in the sense that term is used in s 61.

Did the landlords conduct excessive inspections, or interfere with the tenant?

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance: s 48(1) and (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Ms Xu conducted routine inspection inspections every three months which the tenant accepts were properly done.
However, towards the end of the tenancy, she consented to the owners of unit coming over to look around.
When the owners came around, they were unhappy with damage they considered had been done to the premises. They opened a storage cupboard and took photographs, which the tenant was not expecting.
Ms Xu and the female owner also came around about another 14 days later, to check on whether work required to be done by a 14-day notice had been completed.
The visits were authorised by the RTA and were not excessive in my view. However, the issue of whether there was an interference with the tenant’s peace is now discussed. Did the landlords interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises: s 38(2) of the RTA.
I consider the owners exceeded the tenant’s licence to visit the premises when they took photographs of the premises (including of her personal belongings) without her permission and opened a storage cupboard without asking for her consent. The tenant agreed to the owners coming around to have a look around, but she was not warned they would take photographs or open cupboards.
I consider the owners’ actions were intrusive and an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace and privacy.
The tenant found the experience upsetting.
I order the landlords to pay the tenant $200.00 in damages for the breach.

Did the landlords fail to provide their insurance particulars to the tenant?

Landlords must ensure the tenancy agreement includes its insurance particulars: s13A of the RTA. They must also supply those details upon request: s 45(2B) of the RTA.
The landlord failed in both of these duties. The information was not provided in the tenancy agreement nor in response to several requests by the tenant.
The tenant was inconvenienced by not having the information because she wanted to know if her obligation to pay for the damage at the premises might be reduced depending on the applicable excess because if damage is covered the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent: s 49B(3)(a) of the RTA.
Ms Xu asked the owners to provide the information, but they were confused about where to find it. Eventually they got a copy from the body corporate manager. However, a copy was never passed on to the tenant.
The landlords’ excess is a minimum of $2,500.00, so it makes no difference to what the tenant owes the landlord. However, the tenant had thought the floors could cost about $6,000.00 so if she had had that information earlier, she could have put her mind to rest.
I order the landlords to pay the tenant $200.00 compensation for their breach. 1

Did the landlords request the tenant to pay more than her liability?

A landlord cannot demand or accept payment of an amount that exceeds the tenant's liability under s 49B of the RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See s 49D and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The landlords did not ask the tenant to pay more than $1,800.00 (four weeks’ rent) for any single incident of damage. The landlord wanted $2,100.00 for damage to the walls but that was for multiple incidents of damage, no single one of which would have exceeded $1,800.00. Moreover, the “damage” to the walls relating to hanging pictures and the television was damage that the tenant 1 Exemplary damages cannot be ordered for the breach because the tenant did not apply for them. See s 109(1) of the RTA. had agreed to remediate. It was in the nature of a minor change under s 42B of the RTA.
This claim is dismissed. Bond
The bond is to be paid over to the landlord in part-payment of the tenant’s debt. Non-publication
The Tribunal must on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant seeks non-publication. She has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal orders non-publication.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4548362 — net $3,771.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 May 2023	$2,700.00		Rent arrears to 9 May 2023
Flooring repair	$500.00		Flooring repair
Plaster and paint repairs	$500.00		Plaster and paint repairs
Replace bathroom door	$471.50		Replace bathroom door
Interference with quiet enjoyment		$200.00	Interference with quiet enjoyment
Failing to provide insurance information		$200.00	Failing to provide insurance information
Total award	$4,171.50	$400.00
Net award	$3,771.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,771.50

Claims and awards for application 4548362 — net $3,771.50 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 9 May 2023

Amount: $2,700.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 9 May 2023

Flooring repair

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Flooring repair

Plaster and paint repairs

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Plaster and paint repairs

Replace bathroom door

Amount: $471.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace bathroom door

Interference with quiet enjoyment

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Interference with quiet enjoyment

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Rent arrears

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 [bond number suppressed] to Shelter Realty Limited T/A Harcourts New Lynn as agent for Ashish Kumar and Payal Ram immediately.
[The tenant] must pay Shelter Realty Limited T/A Harcourts New Lynn as agent for Ashish Kumar and Payal Ram $1,971.50 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Michelle Xu, the property manager, attended the hearing for the landlords.
The tenant attended for herself.
The landlord applies for rent arrears, compensation for various costs, and exemplary damages for abandonment.
The tenant applies for compensation for the landlord conducting too many inspections, interfering with her reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, requiring payment in excess of her obligations, and failing to disclose insurance details in the tenancy agreement and upon request.

What does the tenant owe for rent arrears?

The tenancy was for a fixed term beginning on 11 May 2022 and ending on 9 May 2023. On 20 March 2023, the tenant emailed the landlord of her intention to move out on 30 March 2023 due to swipe card issues and the landlord interfering with her reasonable peace and privacy, among other matters. The tenant moved out as advised on 30 March 2023, without obtaining the landlord’s consent to ending the tenancy early.
Fixed term tenancies can only be ended early by consent of the parties or in limited circumstances that do not apply here. Therefore, the tenant must pay rent due until the end of the tenancy.
Ms Xu provided rent records which prove the amount owing.

Should the Tribunal order the tenant to pay compensation?

Cleaning costs

At the end of their tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish: s 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 RTA).
Ms Xu sought reimbursement for cleaning costs. The cleaning must have been done some months ago given the tenancy ended more than three months ago. However, the cleaning contractor is overseas. They have not invoiced the landlord and the landlord has not paid anything to them.
The landlord has not incurred a loss for the cleaning at this time at least. It is uncertain whether the contractor will invoice the landlord. This claim is not allowed.

Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?

The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA.
The landlord claims for damage to a towel rack. However, I am not satisfied that the damage to the towel rack was more than fair wear and tear.
The premises’ vinyl flooring was badly dented in multiple places by the impact of people sitting on chairs. The damage would have been much less if the tenant had been more careful. It would have been prudent to place floor protector pads on the bottom of the chair legs for example.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that the damage was not caused carelessly. The floors were about five-and-a-half years old. The quoted replacement cost is $1,150.00. I order the tenant to pay $500.00 towards the cost of replacement. The reduced amount is to take account of depreciation. Vinyl floors have an expected lifespan of about 10 years.
The tenant damaged the walls by installing a television and hanging pictures. The “damage” was intentional in the sense the tenant knew that damage would occur, albeit it was legitimately permitted damage that she knew she would need to remediate at the end of the tenancy. I order the tenant to pay $500.00 to repair the damage.
The tenant’s partner damaged the bathroom door. The tenant had it replaced without telling the landlords because she was embarrassed. Unfortunately, the replacement door is inferior to the original door and the landlords intend to replace the tenant’s door. The landlords should not have to accept an inferior bathroom door to the original. The damage was caused intentionally. The tenant must pay the landlords $471.50 to replace the door.

Did the tenant abandon the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant abandoned the premises.
A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse and fails to notify the landlord, not intending to return or to meet their obligations.
A tenant commits an unlawful act if they abandon the premises when the rent is in arrears. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00: s 61(5) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The tenant did leave the premises, but she did notify the landlord she was leaving. Nor did the tenant intend not to meet her obligations.
I do not find it proven that the tenant abandoned the premises in the sense that term is used in s 61.

Did the landlords conduct excessive inspections, or interfere with the tenant?

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance: s 48(1) and (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Ms Xu conducted routine inspection inspections every three months which the tenant accepts were properly done.
However, towards the end of the tenancy, she consented to the owners of unit coming over to look around.
When the owners came around, they were unhappy with damage they considered had been done to the premises. They opened a storage cupboard and took photographs, which the tenant was not expecting.
Ms Xu and the female owner also came around about another 14 days later, to check on whether work required to be done by a 14-day notice had been completed.
The visits were authorised by the RTA and were not excessive in my view. However, the issue of whether there was an interference with the tenant’s peace is now discussed. Did the landlords interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises: s 38(2) of the RTA.
I consider the owners exceeded the tenant’s licence to visit the premises when they took photographs of the premises (including of her personal belongings) without her permission and opened a storage cupboard without asking for her consent. The tenant agreed to the owners coming around to have a look around, but she was not warned they would take photographs or open cupboards.
I consider the owners’ actions were intrusive and an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace and privacy.
The tenant found the experience upsetting.
I order the landlords to pay the tenant $200.00 in damages for the breach.

Did the landlords fail to provide their insurance particulars to the tenant?

Landlords must ensure the tenancy agreement includes its insurance particulars: s13A of the RTA. They must also supply those details upon request: s 45(2B) of the RTA.
The landlord failed in both of these duties. The information was not provided in the tenancy agreement nor in response to several requests by the tenant.
The tenant was inconvenienced by not having the information because she wanted to know if her obligation to pay for the damage at the premises might be reduced depending on the applicable excess because if damage is covered the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent: s 49B(3)(a) of the RTA.
Ms Xu asked the owners to provide the information, but they were confused about where to find it. Eventually they got a copy from the body corporate manager. However, a copy was never passed on to the tenant.
The landlords’ excess is a minimum of $2,500.00, so it makes no difference to what the tenant owes the landlord. However, the tenant had thought the floors could cost about $6,000.00 so if she had had that information earlier, she could have put her mind to rest.
I order the landlords to pay the tenant $200.00 compensation for their breach. 1

Did the landlords request the tenant to pay more than her liability?

A landlord cannot demand or accept payment of an amount that exceeds the tenant's liability under s 49B of the RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See s 49D and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The landlords did not ask the tenant to pay more than $1,800.00 (four weeks’ rent) for any single incident of damage. The landlord wanted $2,100.00 for damage to the walls but that was for multiple incidents of damage, no single one of which would have exceeded $1,800.00. Moreover, the “damage” to the walls relating to hanging pictures and the television was damage that the tenant 1 Exemplary damages cannot be ordered for the breach because the tenant did not apply for them. See s 109(1) of the RTA. had agreed to remediate. It was in the nature of a minor change under s 42B of the RTA.
This claim is dismissed. Bond
The bond is to be paid over to the landlord in part-payment of the tenant’s debt. Non-publication
The Tribunal must on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant seeks non-publication. She has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal orders non-publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4548362 — Rent arrears at Unit 601, 20 McCrae Way, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4548362 — Rent arrears at Unit 601, 20 McCrae Way, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does the tenant owe for rent arrears?

Should the Tribunal order the tenant to pay compensation?

Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?

Did the tenant abandon the premises?

Did the landlords conduct excessive inspections, or interfere with the tenant?

Did the landlords fail to provide their insurance particulars to the tenant?

Did the landlords request the tenant to pay more than her liability?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does the tenant owe for rent arrears?

Should the Tribunal order the tenant to pay compensation?

Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?

Did the tenant abandon the premises?

Did the landlords conduct excessive inspections, or interfere with the tenant?

Did the landlords fail to provide their insurance particulars to the tenant?

Did the landlords request the tenant to pay more than her liability?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions